On
October 22, 2015, the 171st Anniversary of the Great Disappointment of 1844,
Spectrum Magazine published an article entitled, “1844 - Pillar of Faith or
Mortal Wound.”

According
to the author, “...the viability of 1844 as a prophetic marker continues to
depend heavily on isolated proof-texts. It seems Adventist scholars who defend
1844 as an unmovable rock are satisfied with finding tiny hooks in a few chosen
verses that appear to (albeit remotely) support our position.” Moreover, “...we
have been given in to the temptation to hold on to tradition instead of
continuing to study Scripture. We have overstated our case and stretched the evidence
in order to confirm our “prophetic identity.” And frankly, that is all 1844
really is, it only massages our corporate
ego, it does little for the individual believer. I can believe that Jesus has
been my perfect intercessor since the ascension without jeopardizing my standing
with God.” Therefore, “We should have the humility to accept that we may have
been wrong all along about the nature and timeline of Christ’s priestly
ministry in heaven.”[i]

This
article is just one of hundreds that have been written over the years by
non-Adventists, former Adventists and, church members alike, questioning the
validity of this unique Adventist doctrine. Objections have been raised that:-The Investigative Judgment (IJ) is nothing more than a feeble face-saving attempt to address the mistake of 1844. -It is an extra-Biblical doctrine invented entirely by Ellen White.-It cheapens the Reformation gospel of Salvation by grace through faith.-It robs Adventists of the assurance of salvation and causes them to live in constant fear.-No other denomination has seen any value in this doctrine and hence all have rejected it.-A good number of Adventist ministers and theologians secretly know the doctrine to be false but are afraid to admit it.

Adventists
have repeatedly refuted each of these claims. Nevertheless, the critics do not
relent. If we respond with a humble and open mind on these issues, we are
interpreted as being uncertain. If we reply with perfect confidence, we are
accused of being dogmatic and intransigent. It seems no matter what answers
Adventists can come up with they appear to
always be interpreted as reactionary inventions cooked up to keep
ourselves from having to bury a dead concept; one that depends on the KJV
translation for its veracity, on isolated and dubious texts such as Daniel
8:14, on the day/year principle, or on the translation of some uncertain Greek
or Hebrew terms.

In light
of these attacks, one would think the debate was over. Nevertheless, as we will
now demonstrate, the debate is far from over. While critics may pride
themselves in their long list of seemingly conclusive arguments, the truth is they have no argument. But if they have no
argument then why do they continue to press the matter?

The
answer is simple. Over the decades,
Adventists have allowed the critics to portray the IJ as a sort of theoretical
concoction that is entirely dependent on the veracity of a long series of
prerequisite assumptions (such as day/year, Daniel 8:14, etc.). And if there is any doubt regarding any of these
assumptions, the entire theological structure collapses like a house of cards.

However,
the IJ cannot be refuted this way (as the author of the Spectrum article and other critics have gone about it).
Their approach, in essence, has been a futile attempt to kill a tree by
plucking off the leaves. This doctrine is not dependent on the day/year
principle, Dan. 8:14, Leviticus or some passage in Hebrews - that is only the
route by which Adventists came to discover it. In reality, the IJ is much
broader and rests first of all on an Arminian understanding of the Protestant
gospel.

Classical Arminianism and Free Will

During
the Protestant Reformation, two distinct camps emerged under the banner of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and Sola Gratia
with conflicting views regarding the human will. The first, Calvinism, rejected
the idea of free will in favor of predestination.[ii] This perspective was
later articulated as five distinct points using the mnemonic T.U.L.I.P. (see
chart below for more info).

(T)otal Depravity

(U)nconditional Election

(L)imited Atonement

(I)rresistible Grace

(P)erseverance of the Saints

In
contrast, the second camp, Arminianism, fully supported the concept of human
free will and therefore rejected each one of the five points above. Please take
a look at the following chart for a more detailed explanation of the
differences, paying special attention to point number five:

Now here
comes the tricky part and, incidentally, the most important part:

Over
time, a third camp emerged that took something of a hybrid approach. They
adopted the first four points from the Arminian side and the fifth point from the
Calvinist side giving rise to what is
popularly referred to as the concept of
Once Saved Always Saved (hereafter O.S.A.S). What's tricky about this is that
they still call themselves Arminian even though, in discussions about the IJ,
how they feel about point number five of the TULIP formula is the single, most
important factor. (For the remainder of this paper I will be using the labels “Classical
Arminianism” vs. “O.S.A.S. Arminianism”)

Therefore,
in any discussion about the IJ, before any mention is made of Hebrew terms in
Daniel or Greek terms in Hebrews or the validity of the day-year principle, two
questions should be asked of any critic:

1) Are you a Calvinist?

2) If not, do you
believe in Once Saved Always Saved?

Why does
this matter? Because all Classical
Arminians reject the idea of Once Saved Always Saved, they all believe that a person who has experienced a genuine new birth
can still be lost, and therefore, all
believe in some form of IJ
differentiating between believers, even though they don't call it that.[iv] However, most Arminians also
believe that when a person dies, they are carried directly into the presence of
God for judgment. At this moment, it is determined if they were faithful or not
and the sentence is pronounced for either reward or punishment.[v] Adventists, on the other
hand, believe that people rest in their graves until the resurrection. Thus,
there is no longer a necessity to force-fit the IJ immediately after death; we
don’t need to rationalize away all the Biblical passages that speak of the
judgment as being in the future. Since we believe Jesus will bring His reward
with Him at His coming, the judgment needs only to take place shortly prior to
that.

In
essence, the Adventist doctrine of the IJ is the natural outgrowth of
Arminianism and Soul Sleep. All the other elements (1844, the Hebrews passages,
the day-year principle) are useful in understanding the judgment and its relevance, but they are not essential.[vi] In other words, the IJ
does not stand or fall on any of those issues. Its necessity stands or falls on
the validity of Classical Arminianism and its eventuality stands or falls on
the validity of Soul Sleep theology. Since Adventists correctly affirm both of
these foundations to be true, we are
therefore correct about the nature of the IJ. At this juncture, the likelihood that we are also correct about all these
other elements, including the timing, is extremely high before the conversation
even starts.

In
summary, if a person believes that:

1) Salvation can be
lost,

2) That God judges,

3) That the souls of
men sleep until the resurrection

4) And, that this
reward/punishment is not received until the resurrection,

Such a
person will very likely come to believe in an Adventist-like pre-advent IJ
irrespective of any other factors. If salvation can be lost, this matter must be objectively decided before the church
goes to heaven. If God judges, then part of his judgment work would be to
determine the faithful from the apostate (the nature of the IJ).[vii] At this point, we have the basic building blocks for
the IJ. And while 3rd and 4th propositions do not lead us
to 1844 (the timing of the IJ) they leave the door comfortably open for such a possibility.[viii] And, this is why those
who attack this doctrine on peripheral issues like Greek or Hebrew terminology
are, quite honestly, wasting their time. If critics would like to tear the IJ
down as a theological concept the only way to do it would be to deny its
Classical Arminian foundation and the Mortal Soul concept which naturally gives
birth to the IJ as Adventists understand it (Appendix A). However, the critics
have not and cannot do this which is why, after many decades of effort, they
have failed in their attempts to refute this doctrine.

Johnny, Jim, and Bob

For the
sake of clarity, let’s take a brief look at how each of the three theological
traditions views salvation.

Calvinism

Before
the foundations of the world, God decreed that Johnny would be lost, and Jim
saved for reasons having nothing to do with them. So, for example, Johnny might
be a relatively good person and Jim a criminal. Nonetheless, because God
ordained it, Johnny would never come to recognize his need of a Savior or repent of his sins. Jim, on the
other hand, at some point in his life, will come to repent and experience a
genuine new birth.

Moreover,
even if Jim falls away after being born again, some
time before his death, he will come back to Christ and die having made
peace with God. Again, all this for no other reason than that God has decreed
it to be so; neither Johnny nor Jim chose any of it or could change their fate
if they wanted to. Therefore, an IJ in such a case would be pointless.

O.S.A.S. Arminianism

Under
this paradigm, both Johnny and Jim are offered the gospel invitation. They are
both free to accept or reject that invitation,
and God does not interfere with this choice. Johnny, of his own free will,
chooses to reject it and Jim to accept it. However, having accepted the
invitation and having experienced a genuine new birth, his salvation is secure
and can no longer be lost. It does not matter if after being born again he
turns away from God, becomes more evil
than Hitler himself, or longs with all his heart to undo his former decision to
come to Christ. His salvation is sealed; he no longer has free will in this
respect. So a pre-Advent IJ in this situation would be pointless since there
is, in a technical sense, no such thing as an apostate.

Classical Arminianism

To
understand this perspective, we need to introduce Bob. As before, the gospel
invitation is still being extended freely to all. Johnny, as usual, rejects it.
Both Jim and Bob accept it. They both open their hearts to Christ; they are
both born again, sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, pardoned of their
sins, declared to be the sons of God, and there is rejoicing in the presence of
the angels on behalf of both. However, only Jim makes it to heaven while Bob
ends up lost in the end.[ix] So it is evident that an IJ,
in this case, is far more complex a process than simply whether a person has
accepted Christ or not.[x]

Again,
Arminian Protestants would argue that this IJ of sorts takes place when Jim and
Bob die. Both would be ushered into the presence of God where their case would
be reviewed either for heaven or hell. Jim would make it to heaven by virtue of
his faith in Christ. Bob, on the other hand, having decided to turn his back on
Christ, would be turned away. Since, as Adventists, we do not believe in the
immortality of the soul and therefore that God has to have a place ready for
the soul immediately after death, there is no need to enter into this judgment
then and there. In fact, there are even some Christians who, recognizing that
the judgment takes place in the future, attempt to harmonize this by proposing
some type of “holding cell” where people don’t immediately get their reward but
only await their day in court. To support this, they make reference to Peter’s
“spirits in prison” (1 Pet. 3:19 KJV) and to the example of the fallen angels
whom “he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of
the great day” (Jude 1:6). All these being workarounds Adventists don’t need
because we don’t believe the dead are conscious. Nor does God need to judge
each person one at a time but instead “has appointed a day, in the which he
will judge the world” (Acts 17:31).

For over
a century and a half, the Adventist church has been challenged by critics from
inside and outside the denomination, insisting that the doctrine of the IJ is unbiblical
at best and cultic at worst. These voices have called us to discard this teaching
if we wish to remain orthodox. Nevertheless, we remain unconvinced by the many
peripheral attacks made against this doctrine for we see it, not as dependent
on a long list of small exegetical presuppositions, but as the natural
outgrowth of Classical Arminianism and Soul Sleep. In light of this foundation
we concur that many critics of the IJ are, quite possibly, either:

1) Concerned with Classical
Arminianism, a debate that was raging centuries before Adventism came around.

2) Concerned with
non-essentials (day/year principle, Daniel 8:14, 1844, the meaning of chatak
in Daniel 9, the connection between Daniel 8 and 9, Leviticus, the book of Hebrews, etc.) in which case, we are free to
disagree without having to discard the entire doctrine.

3) Concerned with a
pseudo IJ in which case they are really attacking a straw man.

4) Unaware of the real
theological issues at hand such as the differences between Calvinism and
Arminianism, and their development throughout the centuries.

In
conclusion, the Adventist church will not discard the IJ because we have no
need to do so and critics have failed in providing us with one. Therefore, our
message to the critics of the IJ is as follows:

1) If you are a Calvinist/ OSAS Arminian, you need to be upfront about this. At this juncture, the debate is not so much about the IJ peripherals as much as the IJ foundation – Classical Arminianism. So rather than expending valuable time debating non-essentials let’s get to the core of it.[xi]2) If you are a Classical Arminian, then we invite you to re-explore the topic with an open mind. There are countless resources that conclusively demonstrate that the IJ doctrine is scripturally sound.3) If, regardless of anything the Adventist church does, you maintain that the IJ is heretical and false then we have no burden to enter into controversy with you. The church cannot consume valuable time and energy in attempting to satisfy the accusations of those whose minds are made up beyond reason.

Moreover,
we have a message to the Adventist church as well. As a church, we need to be
more proactive in confronting people of influence (counter-cult apologists,
Christian leaders, etc.) who continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent
our views. There is no reason to keep
struggling against the current when taking our message to the general public
because a few key people continue to incite prejudice and superstition. We have
a solid foundation for the IJ and we can
stand firm on it as we continue to explore and perfect our understanding of the
details that make this doctrine so unique in the Christian world.

Appendix A: Possible Objections

The
Classical Arminianism/ Soul Sleep combination gives Adventism a strong
philosophical basis for believing in an IJ. However, some may continue to argue
that while this combination may leave the door open to an IJ as the church
understands it, it does not necessarily demand that such a conclusion be
reached. In light of this objection, this appendix will explore each of the
alternative views of judgment that are logically possible under the Arminian/
Soul Sleep combination and demonstrate how the official SDA understanding on
the matter continues to be the most satisfactory conclusion.

The IJ Cannot possibly be true because it is
anti-gospel/ perfectionistic in nature.

Little
needs to be said regarding this attack. While we wholeheartedly agree that this
doctrine has been abused to promote legalism and perfectionism, Adventist
theologians and scholars have repeatedly demonstrated that this is a perversion
of the doctrine, not its essence. The fact that critics continue to make this
claim demonstrates that they are either
Calvinists who think Classical Arminianism is anti-gospel, OSAS Arminians who
think the doctrine of eternal security is a test of gospel orthodoxy, or
they remain ignorant of Adventism’s soteriological heritage. Needless to say,
any student concerned with the implications that the IJ has for a proper
understanding of the gospel can find numerous resources that answer this
question to the satisfaction of anyone who acknowledges the legitimacy of
Classical Arminian soteriology. We recommend some in our resource page below.

God knows who is saved without a judgment

One might
argue that while Classical Arminians reject once saved always saved it does not
necessarily follow that a judgment is
necessary for “God knows those who are his”.
In this argument then, the need for any judgment of any sort remains
unnecessary due to the omniscience of God. While the Arminian/ Soul Sleep
combination may, in fact, leave the door open for a concept such as the IJ, it
does not necessarily mandate such a conclusion. Because God knows who has
turned their back on Christ, there is no need for him to perform a work of
judgment to determine who has been faithful and who has not. God can simply
allow the faithful in and reject the apostate on the basis of his own perfect
knowledge.

Such a
conclusion, while certainly permitted within the Arminian/ Soul Sleep
framework, is nevertheless lacking in various aspects. The most obvious would
be that such a position is more in keeping with Calvinism than Classical
Arminianism. Part of Classical Arminianism’s meta-narrative is that God is
benevolent. This benevolence of God opens the door for a fairness,
transparency, and general other-centered concern that is not self-evident in
Calvinism. Because Christians acknowledged that the sin-drama has affected the
entire universe, including angels, it is only fair and transparent for God to
allow the finite creation into his all-knowing judgments. However, the idea
that God would judge everyone based solely on his omniscience denies this
other-centered concern and does not fit the Arminian framework. Again, such a
position is more logically consistent with Calvinism,
which elevates the sovereignty of God to such a height that God becomes, in the
estimation of all Arminians, arbitrary and aloof. In Calvinism, God acts
according to his desires with no input or apparent concern for the thoughts of
others. This makes perfect sense for Calvinism denies the freedom of the will.
Thus, within this framework, a God who acts according to his omniscience
without any benevolent concern for the thoughts of his created beings is
perfectly in keeping. However, Arminianism is a denial of Calvinism, which, while maintaining the
sovereignty of God does so by paradoxically balancing this with the freedom of
man thus resulting in a much different
picture of God. The picture that emerges from the Arminian concept of God is
that of a God is certainly omniscient but likewise benevolent. Thus, to suggest
that God would judge the world based on his omniscience alone is to deny his
benevolence toward the angels who have been involved in the same drama over
humanity’s salvation and the sin problem. Sadly, many Classical Arminians, in
their desire to refute the IJ doctrine switch their God-picture from
Arminianism to Calvinism in order to raise this objection without even
realizing it. Thus, while it is true that God does know who is saved without a
judgment, it is equally true that the judgment is not intended to be based
solely on Gods omniscience but on his benevolence as well. As a result, it
makes much more sense to see God as participating in a work of judgment that is
transparent for the benefit of all creation.

Thus,
while it is certainly permitted to argue against a judgment on the basis of
God’s omniscience in the Arminian/ Soul Sleep framework Adventist theologians
are under no obligation to do so and in fact, are more internally consistent by
not switching their view of God from Arminian to Calvinist for the sake of
arguing against a particular doctrine.

God judges through unconscious soul sleep.

One might
likewise argue that while Adventists reject the immortal soul doctrine, it does
not necessarily follow that the judgment must be a corporate event that begins
at some point in human history. God could just as easily judge each person
while they are unconsciously asleep. According to this view, the only
difference between Adventists and other Arminians is that the human is not
consciously present at their judgment but is nevertheless judged at the moment
of their death.

This is
certainly a viable position to take. However, those who take this position are
still affirming that believers must be judged and that Christ’s ministry did
not end at the cross. In addition, they
still have to explain why God would have to judge if he is omniscient, what
benefit the judgment has for creation, why the judgment has gone for so long,
what the judgment actually means for believers, the relationship of that
judgment to assurance, the relevance/ importance of such a judgment and the
relationship of the day of atonement to the judgment (since every believer
would face their own "day of atonement" where the faithful were
separated from the apostates after death so to speak).

In other
words, if a person affirms the need for an IJ they may continue to deny the
validity of 1844 by suggesting that the judgment takes place at each individual
person’s death. However, at this point, they would have to embrace all of the
concepts of the IJ doctrine with the exception of its structure or timing. If a
person decides to go this route, the entire debate has shifted from two fronts
(soteriological and eschatological) to just one – the eschatological. By affirming
the need for an IJ under the Arminian / Soul Sleep framework, we eliminate the
soteriological debate and find ourselves in need of an IJ of some sort. At this
point, the only question that remains is: How does God choose to perform the
judgment? Does he do it individually? Or, has he ordained a day in history in
which he will begin a judgment process? (We will address this question in more
detail in a future article. Appendix B
briefly explores this.)

Because
Adventists do not believe in the immortal soul, we are under no obligation to
force the judgment onto each individual at the moment of death. Such a judgment
would be unnecessary since the person would rest in the grave until the second
coming anyways. Thus, there would be no need for the judgment to take place at
each individual death. As a result, Adventist theologians are free to take the
Biblical texts pointing to a judgment day
future of the cross but prior to the second coming as literally pointing to a
judgment process that begins at a certain point in human history.

God may in fact judge, but has not revealed how.Finally, one may attempt to argue that while the Classical Arminian + Soul Sleep combination may lead to an IJ of some sort the Bible does not reveal any details on how. In other words, the foundation for the IJ may be solid but everything else we believe about the IJ is false because scripture simply does not reveal the details of the IJ as much as Adventists claim it does. With this argument in mind, a critic may insist that the best we can do is affirm that all will be judged but will still have to discard all of the peripheral details which Adventists believe about the IJ leaving us with a similar pre-advent judgment theology to that of the United Methodists who, - in reference to the judgment – refuse to enter into specifics. Adventism’s IJ is, therefore, still false because it claims to understand more about God’s judgment than scripture actually reveals. To borrow the words of Andre Reis (the above cited article), “We have overstated our case and stretched the evidence…” A critic who raises this argument may, in fact, go on to say that the foundation for the IJ does not help the SDA case at all because all it does is give us the basics – but it’s not the basics that are the problem it’s the details that we foolishly claim to have ironed out (especially the idea that this judgment began in 1844).However, this argument also fails. For starters, it’s really not that different to the previous “God judges through unconscious soul sleep” argument. And because it’s not that different it leads to the same conclusions. If we are agreeing to an IJ of some sort logic alone would lead us to the same questions as if we were talking about Adventism’s detailed IJ. Questions such as, “Why does God need to judge?” “Does this judgment deny assurance of salvation?” and “When does this judgment begin?” With these, and many other questions, Adventist theologians would have two options: 1) Opt for a “We don’t know and the Bible doesn’t say” or, 2) In typical Adventist fashion, go back to the scriptures and search for answers. It would be ridiculous to assert that the most noble course would be to evade the question and Adventist theologians and scholars are under no Biblical obligation to ignore the many texts that clearly answer the natural questions that would arise from a basic IJ motif. And it is by answering those naturally arising questions that we arrive at Adventism’s IJ doctrine. In addition, Adventist theologians and scholars have repeatedly demonstrated that the way in which we comprehend the details of the judgment are exegetically and theologically sound. Critics are free to disagree but our challenge would be that they not simply disagree but come up with a better IJ doctrine than what Adventism has discovered. And the truth is, they cannot do this. The best they can do is evade the question by claiming that scripture does not reveal these things.

Summary

In
summary, there are four primary objections that can be raised against the
philosophical foundation of the IJ doctrine within the Arminian/ Soul Sleep framework. Those four arguments, while
permissible, nevertheless fail to account for the meta-narrative of both
Arminianism and Soul Sleep. And while other arguments can be raised we are
convinced that these four constitute the most plausible alternatives. Thus, we conclude that to believe in both
Classical Arminianism and Soul Sleep demands a judgment narrative that
begins at some point in human history between the cross and the second coming.
The only way to deny such a powerful foundation is to deny Classical
Arminianism. However, at this point, a
person is no longer debating the IJ but the age old Calvinism, Arminian, OSAS
debate that has raged from centuries past
until this very day. In addition, if a person takes this position they are
certainly free to label Adventists as heretics so long as they are ready to
label all Classical Arminians heretics alongside us. And if that is the case, I
speak on behalf of many Adventists that I know when I say we will gladly accept
the label.

The IJ
stands strong, not based on little verses here and there, but on the logical
outworking of the Arminian and Soul Sleep meta-narratives coming together into
one cohesive theological system. While this certainly does not settle all of
the questions it gives the SDA church a foundation for believing in the IJ from
which we can confidently debate, discuss, and explore the sanctuary, Hebrews,
and the eschatological ramifications of Daniel 8-9. It is to some of these
themes that we now turn.

Resources

The Case for the Investigative Judgment by Marvin Moore: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Investigative-Judgment-Marvin-Moore/dp/0816323852

The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism by
George R. Knight: http://www.amazon.com/The-Apocalyptic-Vision-Neutering-Adventism/dp/0828023859

The Judgment and Assurance by W.W. Whidden: http://www.amazon.com.au/The-Judgment-Assurance-Woodrow-Whidden-ebook/dp/B0088HJJEA

[ii] While technically
Lutheranism classifies as the first camp to emerge during the protestant
reformation it failed to answer certain questions which then gave birth to
Calvinism and Arminianism. It is these two camps that are most relevant to our
discussion.

[iii]http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html

[iv] Some may argue that if
all Arminians believed in a type of IJ differentiating between believers that
they would A) have produced a parallel theology to the IJ by now or, B) have
embraced Adventism’s IJ. However, these propositions can be rejected for the following
reasons. A) Just because an IJ is logical within a Classical Arminian framework
does not mean the theologians will willingly go that route. For example, in
regards to the question of what happens at death (judgment, holding cell, etc.)
United Methodists refuse to take a stance even exhibiting a level of
uncertainty regarding their own immortal soul theology and using this as the
basis for refusing to answer the question of the judgments eventuality.
[http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-happens-after-a-person-dies] In
addition, their rejection of Adventism’s IJ is most likely due to the way in
which we as a church have failed to properly present this doctrine to the
world. We elaborate on this in Appendix C which explores the relevance of the
IJ but will elaborate in more detail in future articles.

[v] There are a variety of
views in the protestant world regarding judgment. Some believe that the dead
are judged right away. Others believe in a “holding cell theology” in which the
dead are placed on hold until the return of Jesus at which point they receive
their reward. With regard to the living some believe that they are judged just
prior to the secret rapture.

[vi] Some might argue that
Arminianism and Soul Sleep are not enough but that we also need the Great
Controversy theme in order to arrive at the IJ. However, we would counter by
saying that without Classical Arminianism the Great Controversy theme would not
exist. While the Great Controversy theme is instrumental in making more sense
of the IJ it is not essential for its foundation and is, in reality, yet
another outgrowth of Classical Arminianism.

[vii] Some are entirely at
variance with the idea of God having to engage in a judgment process that would
determine the faithful from the apostate by virtue of his omniscience. However,
such a judgment must necessarily take place. It is of no consequence if this
judgment takes place in God's mind, at death, a judgement prior to second
coming or a judgement at or after second coming, or even if the knowledge of
the faithful and the apostate has eternally existed in God’s foreknowledge.
These are nonessentials. The point is, God necessarily engages in a judgment
process that separates the faithful from the apostate. The timing of this
judgment is a separate, non-essential (albeit relevant) issue.

[viii] By saying that the
door is left comfortably open for the possibility of 1844 we do not intend to
portray 1844 as an uncertain teaching. A future article will deal with the
philosophical and exegetical foundations of the timing of the IJ and
demonstrate that Adventists have no need to question this conclusion either.

[ix] Lest the reader be
tempted into thinking that Classical Arminianism is inherently lacking in
providing assurance of salvation observe the challenges that Calvinism and OSAS
Arminianism have in this respect as well. In Calvinism God elects those he
saves with no choice of their own. You can only become aware that you were
elected. You cannot actually choose to be saved. But what happens when a
seemingly born again Christian apostatizes? Calvinism only has two answers.
Either he will repent again in the future (at which point you have a person
whom God has elected for both salvation and apostasy and then salvation again)
or you were never really elected for salvation to begin with. Thus, many
Calvinists who struggle with a post-conversion fall have been left wondering if
they are eternally reprobate or not. OSAS Arminianism faces the same struggle.
Either your apostasy is proof you were never saved to begin with or you will
forever remain saved despite your apostasy. In the end, believers are left
having to wonder which one is true of them. Classical Arminianism teaches that
we are saved by grace through faith and that we remain saved, not by works, but
by continued grace through faith. Likewise, a Classical Arminian can
potentially experience a lack of assurance knowing that its possible for he/she
to apostatize and be judged accordingly. Thus, all of these systems fail to
provide “air-tight assurance” meaning in the realm of assurance none can
confidently claim to be superior to the other. Nevertheless, an Arminians hope
never rests on his/her performance or ability to be “faithful” but on faith in
Christ as their only hope. This faith can be rejected for either legalistic
reasons (such as the book of Hebrews) or carnal reasons. But so long as that
faith (a gift of God) is maintained we are secure in the one in whom we put our
trust.

[x] Let’s be clear here
that this has nothing to do with Adventists but applies to all Classical Arminians such as Methodists and Pentecostals. And
again, while not in either category Lutheranism also rejects Perseverance
theology and OSAS leaving the possibility of a genuinely born again person to
turn their back on God and be lost wide open.

[xi] The article cited in
the opening claims that "We should have the humility to accept that we may
have been wrong all along about the nature and timeline of Christ’s priestly
ministry in heaven.” However, its nature is derived from Classical Arminianism
and its timeline is firstly based on Mortal Soul theology. The timing is
discussed in Appendix B and a future article will tackle it in greater detail.

About the Authors:Mike Manea studied theology at Andrews Theological Seminary and has served the church for over twenty years as youth pastor, missionary, Bible worker and teacher. He is currently a senior partner at Zahid|Manea LLC, a marketing and management consulting firm based in Southern California. He runs several theology and philosophy sites and podcasts and is cofounder of Intelligent Adventist. In his free time he enjoys spending time in nature with his wife and four year old son. You can follow his blog at mikemanea.com

Originally from New Jersey, Marcos now lives in Australia with his wife and children. His dream is to share the story of Jesus with the post-modern culture that pervades the continent. Marcos’ greatest passion is to help others realize that Christianity is a passionate and committed relationship with God, not a religion. He also runs his own blog at pomopastor.com